fmonroy wrote:Hello Michel, I just can say that thinking on space's extension is intriguing, both: if infinite and if not.

Oh yes, it is, Fmonroy! But I can't forget e.g. Zeno's paradox of Hercules and the tortoise: the math is correct, yet you know that the logic is wrong. I find math dangerous because:
1) Religion is dogmatic. It is true or false depending on the dogma.
2) Science (including math) is accurate. It is either right or wrong.
3) Philosophy is right only for the philosopher and it can co-exist with another philosophies. You can even mix them; you can be epicurean and stoic at the same time.

... that's why I like philosophy; no one can disagree - instead they can make their own! ... (yes, I know, I make it sound easier than it is but ... I have a good hair day! )

How do you disagree with math? I see what you are saying its just, you cant really disagree with math. The only thing is for that to happen the amount of energy would have to be linearly proportional to the space. Also, infinity does not exist, so there can not exist infinite space or energy.

ogo08 wrote:How do you disagree with math? I see what you are saying its just, you cant really disagree with math.

I only disagree with the way you want to probe a thing using math.

ogo08 wrote:The only thing is for that to happen the amount of energy would have to be linearly proportional to the space. Also, infinity does not exist, so there can not exist infinite space or energy.

Negative my friend. mmm Lets say, you are a superior being and you stop the time... you have a perfect snapshot of all the universe to just observe... there is a finite amount of energy on a volume of a gallon, then you move to the next gallon and you measure the energy there.

This way you construct a plot with distance as X and energy as Y. To do it easy take a value for Y and make it uniform (I know it is not, but we can take the average), then just integrate from 0 to the infinite F(x)... something like 435 + 435 + 435 + 435 + ... an infinite number of times = infinite... basic calculus man... your argument probes nothing.

We can't disagree with math, Ogo08, and that is the nature of the problem. Zeno's paradox uses math that you can't disagree with, yet the conclusion is false because, when you think of it, you limit not only distance (Hercules never runs faster than the tortoise) but also time. Now, this is an easy example but when the math gets more complex, the logic gets lost. Here is an example:

Halfway between London and Oxford, they build a bridge over the road. Now, I maintain that the bridge is closer to London than Oxford. How do you explain that?

Michel wrote:We can't disagree with math, Ogo08, and that is the nature of the problem. Zeno's paradox uses math that you can't disagree with, yet the conclusion is false because, when you think of it, you limit not only distance (Hercules never runs faster than the tortoise) but also time. Now, this is an easy example but when the math gets more complex, the logic gets lost. Here is an example:

Halfway between London and Oxford, they build a bridge over the road. Now, I maintain that the bridge is closer to London than Oxford. How do you explain that?

Hello Michel, I hadn't read about that "paradox"... hahaha Zeno was an idiot, a differential of space/time can't be divided because it's infinitelly small

Well, I don't think he was much of an idiot, Fmonroy, since he is still remembered today. His point was, and still is valid today. Basically it says that if somethings sums up, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is true.

Say that Hercules let the tortoise to have an advance of X feet since he runs twice as fast; when he has come to where it started, the tortoise has moved X/2, and when he reaches that point, the tortoise has still an advance of X/4, and so on. In other words: Hercules can never overcome the tortoise. The math proves it. Yet a child knows that if the distance is not limited, at a certain point Hercules must overcome the tortoise and it does. But the math adds X/2 + X/4 + X/8 + X/16, etc. It ignores that time is equally divided in the equation. The math is correct; if Hercules runs twice as fast, they will be abreast after covering a distance equal to twice the lead. But ... time doesn't stop, does it?

Likewise, I am sceptical to any notion of the universe, space and time, based on numbers and equations only.

... Incidentally, no one has yet understood why I maintain the bridge is closer to London than Oxford?

Michel wrote:Well, I don't think he was much of an idiot, Fmonroy, since he is still remembered today. His point was, and still is valid today. Basically it says that if somethings sums up, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is true.

Yes, I'm sorry for that, got excited Still I think a lot of people is remembered by their mistakes

Michel wrote:Say that Hercules let the tortoise to have an advance of X feet since he runs twice as fast; when he has come to where it started, the tortoise has moved X/2, and when he reaches that point, the tortoise has still an advance of X/4, and so on. In other words: Hercules can never overcome the tortoise. The math proves it. Yet a child knows that if the distance is not limited, at a certain point Hercules must overcome the tortoise and it does. But the math adds X/2 + X/4 + X/8 + X/16, etc. It ignores that time is equally divided in the equation. The math is correct; if Hercules runs twice as fast, they will be abreast after covering a distance equal to twice the lead. But ... time doesn't stop, does it?

The problem is that Zeno's approach is going to infinite: distance/infinite and time/infinite and there trying to get the speed you have 0/0 that is undefined... that's the paradox. Exactly as you say, he is mixing a time concept (speed) with timeless concepts(time/infinite).

To deal with those concepts math has differential calculus which introduces the "change" factor: it is infinitesimal but it's different for Hercules and the tortoise, because the rate at wich changes distance over time is different for each individual.

Michel wrote:Likewise, I am sceptical to any notion of the universe, space and time, based on numbers and equations only.

Me too my friend

Michel wrote:... Incidentally, no one has yet understood why I maintain the bridge is closer to London than Oxford?

maybe because London is at the east and earth's rotation movement is going that way? just guessing

This way you construct a plot with distance as X and energy as Y. To do it easy take a value for Y and make it uniform (I know it is not, but we can take the average), then just integrate from 0 to the infinite F(x)... something like 435 + 435 + 435 + 435 + ... an infinite number of times = infinite... basic calculus man... your argument probes nothing.

\
Ok that would tell you that you have infinite energy, the only problem is that you have to have infinite space for that to work. you would get 435+435+435....+435+435, then stop because there are not an infinite number of gallons. this would be a finite number. To ingtegrate that from 0 to infinity, the domain ox x would have to be [0,infinity), yet it would not be because there is not infinite space for infinite gallons to fit.

Michel,
I would say human error, you could measure it a little bit more accurate than the people who built it, then see it is a tiny bit closer to London.

fmonroy wrote: The problem is that Zeno's approach is going to infinite

Exactly, Fmonroy. But you don't even have to know that in order to know that something must be wrong because if one is running faster than the other, it must overcome.

When I maintain that the bridge is closer to London than Oxford, I lead you in error simply by making it questionable. Because, of course, the bridge is closer to London than ... Oxford is!

Likewise, when we say that e.g. infinity exists or doesn't, what are we really talking about? You can say:
1) Infinity exists because on any volumetric surface; a sphere or a moebius strip, a two-dimensional being can move for ever.
2) Infinity doesn't exist because what can happen will happen again, thus creating a new occurance of the past.

Both are true; it's only how we see it; a half empty or half full glass. But when we try to explain either 1) or 2) with mathematics, ... I feel we go the wrong way. Incidentally, Kurt Goedel, probably the most influencial mathematician of the first part of the 20th century, calculated the existance of an infinite number of universes. But he is currently totally ignored for that work.

Michel wrote:Exactly, Fmonroy. But you don't even have to know that in order to know that something must be wrong because if one is running faster than the other, it must overcome.

Yes, but the guy misused math for his benefit. We need to use the same weapon against him.

Michel wrote:When I maintain that the bridge is closer to London than Oxford, I lead you in error simply by making it questionable. Because, of course, the bridge is closer to London than ... Oxford is!

hahahaha, very nice one!!! Let's suggest Rob to force the use of parenthesis when we write logical operations here, hahaha

It’s easy to disagree with math for a number of reasons. First we do not have a completed understanding of math so our knowledge is incomplete. Second there are a number of areas where math disagrees with itself. There are a number of examples that can be sited here.

The first note in this series that I posted is a disagreement with math. If one just looks at things from a mathematical point of view [which is a very limited point of view] they encounter all types of conditions that they can’t handle. Physics today still can’t understand or explain these conditions so they find ways to avoid them by having them cancel them selves out. That approach has lead to string and M theories. Electronics has done the same thing with imaginary numbers. Just the concept of an imaginary number makes no sense at all in terms of our current understanding of math but yet its use has made great advances in the field of electronics.

Its not that these things don’t make sense its just that we don’t know enough yet to understand them. New areas of math are being developed all the time to cope with conditions that the old understandings can not deal with. Some mathematicians have a hard time dealing with this. They have spent some much of there life learning and understanding these rules that when they find conditions that the rules can’t cope with they find they can’t cope. I know been there, done that. But eventually a new idea comes along, a new way of looking at something and new doors open up and off we go.

Another fun thing about infinity is it is expandible. There are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, as there are an infinite amount of numbers between .1 and .1002 for example. Infinity is huge, but it is also small too!... if it fits between 0 and 1 that is